Kindest Regards, Excaliburton!
Excaliburton said:
Gut the whole New Testament!? I never said that. You are using a "straw man" argument against me.
Thank you for your post.
No, I am not using a "straw man" if I have shown, several times, where the thinking used to dismiss Paul can as easily be used to dismiss the other writers of the New Testament. Depending which scholars you prefer, I have heard an assortment of pot shots that combined effectively destroy the New Testament. So, my arguments are hardly "straw man," even if they are based on a much simpler logic. I fail to see how one can "pick and choose" which "words of Jesus" (that He didn't write) are valid, and which are not. To dimantle one book or writer by a set of rules means applying the same set of rules to the other books and writers, with which they invariably fail too.
And, interestingly, the "problem" doesn't stop there. When applied to other religious texts, the same "rules" destroy them as well. Not strawmanning, simply carrying the rules to their natural end conclusion. Why pretend to be religious, why not be atheist? That is the natural end conclusion...it is simply a matter of time and application.
But we do need to use the technique called textual criticism to find the original words of the New Testament.
You might. I realize a great deal of scholarship does. I do *not*
need to use anything of the sort. I can, and am prone to do, listen to the words with my heart instead of my head, and find what good is in them for my edification and uplifting.
The Old Testament was more reliable and less edited, as we can see by the close similarity to the Isaiah Scroll from Qumran and the KJV version.
There are textual critics who would argue this until the sun stopped rising. Just ask BobX, the next time he's around, or read his redaction theory thesis (to which Bananabrain wrote a scathing reply).
The reason why the NT is less reliable is because it was written in an age when many different factions were contesting the "correct" Christian dogma, and today scholars are a widespread agreement that the gospels were edited (changed or redacted) at least 5 times.
This may be the reason you prefer. Applied to the Old Testament, the same can be said, look at BobX's thesis. So, we return to which scholars you prefer...(strawman? Nah...)
the Textus Recepticus is far from the original autographs.
367 years plus or minus from the time of the execution of Jesus, I suppose one could say that there was plenty of time to doctor the scripts. Of course, who gets to pick and choose which scripts were doctored and which were not? A scholar with a reputation to make, or an axe to grind...?
I suggest you check the translator notes
Likewise, may I suggest you read the translator notes in the 1611 King James. The committee of scholarly men that translated the Textus Receptus wrote a letter to the King, and one to the people. Very worthwhile reading, I might add, straight from the "English" horse's mouths.
among hundreds of variants in the "established" NT:
Interesting thing about variants...how many were found in the "trash dumps" of monasteries. Much like the Jewish scribes, Monk scribes held the texts as sacred. If those texts were transcribed with an accidental error, it was removed from service, yet it couldn't be destroyed in any vulgar way (out of respect for G-d's Word), so these erroneous texts were laid aside. Only to be found by later scholarship to argue over...
To wit:
27tc Before τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα (to pneuma kai to {udwr kai to |aima), the Textus Receptus (TR) reads ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. 5:8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ (“in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that testify on earth”). This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence – both external and internal – is decidedly against its authenticity. For a detailed discussion, see TCGNT 647-49. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence. This longer reading is found only in nine late mss, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these mss (221 2318 [18th century] {2473 [dated 1634]} and [with minor variations] 61 88 429 629 636 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest ms, codex 221 (10th century) includes the reading in a marginal note, added sometime after the original composition. The oldest ms with the Comma in its text is from the 14th century (629), but the wording here departs from all the other mss in several places. The next oldest mss on behalf of the Comma, 88 (12th century) 429 (14th) 636 (15th), also have the reading only as a marginal note (v.l.). The remaining mss are from the 16th to 18th centuries. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek ms until the 14th century (629), and that ms deviates from all others in its wording; the wording that matches what is found in the TR was apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the Comma appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either ms, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until a.d. 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity. The reading seems to have arisen in a 4th century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church. The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus’ Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared, there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek mss that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written in ca. 1520), Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this ms sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text, as though it were made to order; but he does defend himself from the charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever mss he could for the production of his text. In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: He did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold. Modern advocates of the TR and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum on the basis of heretical motivation by scribes who did not include it. But these same scribes elsewhere include thoroughly orthodox readings – even in places where the TR/Byzantine mss lack them. Further, these advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: Since this verse is in the TR, it must be original. (Of course, this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the TR = the original text.) In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum goes back to the original text yet does not appear until the 14th century in any Greek mss (and that form is significantly different from what is printed in the TR; the wording of the TR is not found in any Greek mss until the 16th century)? Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: Faith must be rooted in history. Significantly, the German translation of Luther was based on Erasmus’ second edition (1519) and lacked the Comma. But the KJV translators, basing their work principally on Theodore Beza’s 10th edition of the Greek NT (1598), a work which itself was fundamentally based on Erasmus’ third and later editions (and Stephanus’ editions), popularized the Comma for the English-speaking world. Thus, the Comma Johanneum has been a battleground for English-speaking Christians more than for others.
The Textus Receptus dates from around 400 AD. Anything dated after that cannot be used to correct it. Further, the Qumran Isaiah scroll demonstrates the integrity of *at least* that book, if no other. We have no extant NT texts earlier than the Textus Receptus with which to guage. Comparing with still later texts is an exercise in futility...so why bother? Unless the point is the undermining and obliteration of the NT.
The *actual* words of Jesus will not be known in this existence. For all any of us, scholarly or not, can do is accept on faith, or dismiss by whatever reasons seem suitable to our mentalities. There is no guarantee, other than our individual experiences with the Divine through what we hope are the messages of the man we know as Jesus. We accept and apply, and see what happens. I am not so superstitious as scribal Monks, but I would still tread with caution and treat the Word of G-d with respect, even if it turns out there is no G-d and the words are a complete hoax and sham. Call it a variation of Pascal's wager if you prefer, but I find a peace and solace in my life when guided by the Words, that is not there without. Quibble if you wish, nibble away, chip away at the stone until a hopelessly top heavy house of cards is ready to topple...best in my opinion to walk away and not waste the effort. Apply the effort to something more worthwhile, like fishing maybe? You may undermine your own faith, you may convince others to join you in your efforts. I have already looked at this, not much, but enough to know where it leads. Where it leads is *not* the words of Jesus, or even Yashua. The *exact* same tools used to "expose" those words *attributed* to Him, are the exact same tools used to destroy His words and the meaning and hope and faith and love and charity behind them.
My thoughts. Do with them as you wish.
